That was more true in Gannett Blog's early days, when I had more time for the kind of posts you're describing, because there was less daily Gannett news to report. As news volume grew, however, I appealed for help, by soliciting examples of good work. I received a relative handful of replies -- some of which I wrote about.Here is the really sad part: To the best of my knowledge, in the 17 months since I launched, I have never received any good-work recommendations from the Communications Department, under Vice President Tara Connell, or the News Department, under recently retired chief Phil Currie. Not a single story, photograph, illustration, layout, headline, video, blog, slideshow or project. Not so much as a photo caption. A Gannett newspaper could win a Pulitzer Prize, and I'm confident the company would not give me a statement or phone call, asking me to publicize that wonderful accomplishment.
FYI: The Web isn't a fad
This does not mean Corporate thinks your work is all bad, or unworthy of being showcased on one of the newspaper industry's more widely read sites. You are doing terrific work everyday, against increasingly impossible odds. Here is what is going on:
Gannett's top brass would sooner choke on a President's Ring than share good news about you with me. This is because CEO Craig Dubow (left), and his team cannot overcome their pride, and accept reality: The Internet is not a fad; it is real. Ignoring blogs will not make them go away. The year is 2009, and Gannett is now in grave danger. It is not 1999. And it is certainly not 1989. It is time to put away your golf clubs, and show that you take your jobs as seriously as we take ours.In the 17 months since its launch, Gannett Blog has racked up more than one million visits, and recorded more than 2.4 million page views. Will you finally join us, or will you fall further behind?
Please post your replies in the comments section, below. To e-mail confidentially, write gannettblog[at]gmail[dot-com]; see Tipsters Anonymous Policy in the green sidebar, upper right.
[Image: today's Arizona Republic front page, with its Super Bowl coverage of the state's Cardinals, Newseum. Gannett's second-biggest circulation paper after USA Today is one of the company's 85 U.S. dailies, plus 17 in the United Kingdom]
I know for a fact that the company was considering buying Yahoo at only $40/share (a zillion splits ago).
ReplyDeleteMcCorkindale decided that the internet was just a fad...
Oops.
This has got to be the most obnoxious post you have created yet. Why do you constantly feel the need to pat yourself on the back?
ReplyDeleteOnce this down cycle finishes and Gannett has transformed itself into what we have been preparing for this past year, Gannett will emerge strong leader in the media world.
Flame Away.....
8:35 pm asked: "Why do you constantly feel the need to pat yourself on the back?"
ReplyDeleteI OCCASIONALLY pat myself on the back, when I have done a good job. I do this because I need to remind my readers that keeping this blog is work. I do that in hopes people will pay me now and then, so I can keep this blog going.
Here's some good news, Cincinnati's website doesn't take 40 seconds to load the homepage anymore! It takes like 15! That's over a 60% improvement!
ReplyDeleteAlso, 8:35 pm: You may want to re-read the following early-November New York Times story about the price Gannett has paid for ignoring this blog. Here's the short link: http://tinyurl.com/b3j47o
ReplyDeleteWhether Gannett will ever recognize the importance of not ignoring media, even blogs that are critical of it, will be seen in the future.
ReplyDeleteBut, think what Gannett's newspaper publishers would have said and did say in the previous decades when a politician, city manager, superintendent, mayor, governor, etc. ignored a publication that was critical over choices they had made in their professional capacity?
The funny thing is I have no doubt Gannett execs see the irony in it all but choose to take a different approach than what they have advocated for when on the other end.
::: Insert fingers into ears, close eyes and scream :::
"The Web is a fad, the Web is a fad, the Web is a fad!"
It's not so much that older executives thinkl the Web is a fad. They thought computers were a fad.
ReplyDeleteWhen Apple developed the desktop computer older executives regarded it the way they regarded the typewriter: Only secretaries had typewriters, executives don't.
A lot still feel the same way. If you never worked a typewriter, you ddn't have the mindset to adapt to the computer. Remember when computer keyboards had to have sounds and resistant keys - the IBM M board - so typists would feel compfortable?
Then people with keyboards couldn't see the benefit of a mouse.
Then the color monitor. Then computer graphics programs.
If the high executives at any company do not have hands-on experience (pun intended), they don't get it.
You are pretty proud of yourself and, of course, you pander to your audience by saying they are all doing great work. How could that be? Is this the one company in the world where everyone is doing great work? Or are the only people doing good work the ones who read your blog?
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, your page visits are impressive, although they would be puny for the smallest of Gannett papers.
So you are a great success? What's your total gross revenue from this venture?
They don't talk to you because you are a pain in the ass. Because a large percentage of the content here is crying or screaming or just plain wrong. Because you would never, ever, say an nice thing about Tara or Phil regardless of what they did. You, and this blog's faithful, would simply ridicule it because it is fun to do and fun to read, and drives traffic (have you ever mentioned that you are trying to raise money?). Because you have become, like the stooge talking heads on TV, only able to see things in black and white. Because you make incredible leaps of logic like: they won't talk to me therefore they don't believe in the internet. I have said this before: you are a talented reporter. But damn, do you need an editor.
ReplyDelete12:17 a.m., reading your post brought some unrelated memories, but they're somewhat germane to the topic so I will share.
ReplyDeleteI remember how excited we were at my site, years ago, when we had the capacity to begin printing color photos, graphics and ads. The newspaper looked wonderful!
Now we can't print color for inside editorial pages unless there are color ads on the page ... another reversal of fortunes.
I think the underlying point someone is trying to make here is: Despite everything, Gannett has some good journalists (and good ad execs and good circulation people and good pressmen) doing good work, and it would be nice to read a bit more about that (although you do spotlight some on occasion).
ReplyDeleteIt also would be nice if the tone here was perhaps a little less in the dancing-on-the-grave zone. There's a difference between chronicling the decline (and possible fall) of a company and being the head cheerleader of such an outcome, and the writing of blog posts here too often feel like the latter. Still, if I wanted to really complain about that, I wouldn't have to read it...
10:50 AM
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't read even the occasional feature about the great journalist, pressman or exec. on here. That's content. I come here for news and I get it.
I think Jim has a real skill that is so lacking today. He writes for the readers instead of the source.
It is always fascinating to watch how people who work in media companies react when they are subject to the same kind of hyper-critical scrutiny that they focus on others. Just imagine if the employees of a city department were all furious at their boss and demoralized - that would be news and the department boss would be described in the paper as "under fire" for his or her "management style." Add in the fact that the department was watching its finances crumble and you would have a real great package. But Gannett can't stand the heat at all as evidenced by some comments here. And don't give be b.s. about how government is different - according the the journalism industry itself, newspapers are a "cornerstone of democracy" and would thus seem to be fair game for just the kind of "watchdog" reporting that governments and non-profit organizations receive every day.
ReplyDeleteWhere is the "good company news?"
ReplyDeleteIt's on the same page as the good government news and the reports of all the planes that landed safely today at JFK.